OTTAWA - The Conservative government prevented a senior Library and Archives Canada bureaucrat from speaking to the media last year at the height of the Senate spending scandal, newly released documents show.

The records offer a glimpse into just how gingerly officials treated the flow of even arcane technical information at a time when the government was in the throes of a political crisis and facing allegations of a coverup.

In December, The Canadian Press asked for a background briefing with an official from Library and Archives Canada about the rules and statutes that surround how government emails are archived and deleted.

Those rules had come in for media scrutiny after a police document suggested all of the emails belonging to Benjamin Perrin, formerly a lawyer in the Prime Minister's Office, had been deleted upon his resignation.

Perrin had been in the loop on the deal struck between Mike Duffy and Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's former chief of staff, to cover the cost of reimbursing the disgraced senator's disallowed expense claims.

Both Wright and Duffy have been the subject of police allegations of fraud and bribery, and have denied the allegations. No charges have been laid.

Within a few hours of receiving the request from The Canadian Press on Dec. 4, bureaucrats inside Library and Archives Canada had identified an expert to provide a technical briefing on the rules the following day.

"Since you are a pro at doing interviews and understand the (Library and Archives) Act like no other ... well, let's just say yours was the first name to come up," one media relations officer wrote to the individual in question.

"Pending approval from (the Privy Council Office), (the director general) has given her OK that you be the one to have this informal chat."

But an email chain released under the Access to Information Act shows that officials from the Privy Council Office — the central bureaucracy and serves the prime minister and cabinet — and the Department of Canadian Heritage quickly put the kibosh on the briefing.

At least one other reporter, whose name was redacted for privacy reasons, was also seeking a briefing.

The request for approval went as high as the Privy Council Office, which directed Library and Archives to ask Heritage Minister Shelly Glover's office to approve the interview.

"Did this request get approval from the minister's office?" one senior analyst asked Library and Archives.

"This has been nixed by PCH and PCO. Instead we are dealing with the questions only," the media officer at Library and Archives revealed a day later.

The Canadian Press was eventually told that the only person who could give the briefing "was out of town."

It then took a village to answer a series of emailed questions that were subsequently submitted by The Canadian Press.

At least 32 civil servants at Library and Archives Canada, the Privy Council Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and Canadian Heritage were copied on responses that were tossed back and forth. None of the questions pertained to the Perrin case specifically.

It's unclear how many political staff would have been involved, because they are not subject to the Access to Information Act.

An initial set of responses came more than a day later, most of them copies of answers already provided to other journalists.

But other answers took an additional six days or one full week after the initial request for a briefing. One such question about government records was "What is meant by archival or historical value?"

"Do we plan on replying or simply ignore their questions? The due dates were last week," wrote one media relations officer.

Mike Storeshaw, a spokesman for Glover, said her office did not play a role in cancelling the interview.

"In fact, no such request for approval of a background briefing was ever presented to our office," Storeshaw said. "Any decision around it would have been made outside of the office of the minister."

Deputy Liberal leader Ralph Goodale said the case is an example of Conservative "paranoia" around the Senate spending affair.

"The government obviously has been extremely skittish around the whole Wright-Duffy affair and they have been going to extraordinary lengths to control information, stifle information, trying to starve the issue of oxygen so hopefully from their point of view it goes away," said Goodale.

Under the Library and Archives of Canada Act, government records must be preserved based on the "administrative, legal, fiscal, evidential or historical" information they contain. Each government institution is in charge of making sure their employees comply with these rules.

The Privy Council Office eventually discovered that Perrin's emails had not been deleted, but were frozen after his departure because of a unrelated legal dispute.

Related on HuffPost:

Close



Key Senate Scandal Quotes

of





"In terms of Sen. Wallin, I have looked at the numbers. Her travel costs are comparable to any parliamentarian travelling from that particular area of the country over that period of time. For instance, last year Sen. Wallin spent almost half of her time in the province she represents in the Senate. The costs are to travel to and from that province, as any similar parliamentarian would do."

"By throwing a member of this Senate under the bus, finding her guilty without a fair hearing such as any other Canadian could expect — a right guaranteed us by the charter — to proceed without the evidence having been adduced and considered on which the charge in the motion is based, is a fundamental affront to Canadian democracy and makes a mockery of this chamber. This charade is supposedly about preserving the reputation of this place, but the real intent is to remove a perceived liability — namely, me."

"The senator and all other senators and members of the House are fully prepared and committed to have an examination of expenses to ensure that they are appropriate. That is the commitment the government has made in both chambers, a commitment we will keep."

"Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear on this question. This matter came to my attention two weeks ago, after speculation appeared in the media. On Wednesday, May 15, I was told about it. At that very moment, I demanded that my office ensure that the public was informed, and it was informed appropriately."

"I made one last effort. I said: 'I don't believe I owe anything, and besides which, I don't have $90,000.' 'Don't worry,' Nigel said. 'I'll write the cheque.'"

"As I have said repeatedly, my first knowledge of this was on the date and at the time indicated. Prior to that point in time, it was my understanding that Mr. Duffy had paid back his own expenses."

"If the leader of the NDP is suggesting I had any information to the contrary from Mr. Wright prior to this, that is completely false. I learned of this on May 15 and immediately made this information public, as I have said many times."

"Mr. Speaker, that information was already made public on Feb. 13, and I have been very clear about this. Mr. Duffy approached me after a caucus meeting to discuss this matter. From the beginning, my position has been clear: any inappropriate expenses should be refunded to taxpayers by the senators concerned."

"I've violated no laws, I've followed the rules."

"Mr. Speaker, why then did the Prime Minister, last week, deny instructing any members of his personnel to settle the Mike Duffy matter when he gave that order with that personnel present in the room at a caucus meeting in February of this year?"

"Mr. Speaker, it was my view from the beginning that any inappropriate expenses by any senator should be repaid by the senator, not by somebody else. That was very clear. Those are the facts obviously before us. As I say, my statements on this matter have been very clear and very consistent."

"Mr. Duffy was seeking clarification on remarks I had made to this effect in caucus and I was adamant that any inappropriate expenses had to be reimbursed by him."

"So after caucus on Feb. 13 of this year, I met the prime minister and Nigel Wright, just the three of us. I said that despite the smear in the papers, I had not broken the rules, but the prime minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth. It's not about what you did; it's about the perception of what you did that has been created in the media."

"No, Mr. Speaker I absolutely did not say that."

"I argued: I'm just following the rules like all of the others. But it didn't work. I was ordered by the prime minister: Pay the money back, end of discussion. Nigel Wright was present throughout, just the three of us."

"I have made it very clear what my views were to all my staff and to our caucus. We expect inappropriate expenses to be reimbursed and I would expect they would be reimbursed by the person who incurred them. I would certainly not expect them to be reimbursed by somebody else."

"Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, Mr. Wright informed me of his personal cheque on May 15. This was an error in judgment. He indicated he did this because he believed that taxpayers should be reimbursed and he was prepared to ensure that happened, as in fact it did happen. However, obviously this was an error in judgment for many reasons that have already been outlined and for that reason, I accepted his resignation."

"I think if you read the affidavit it makes very clear that the decision to pay money to Mr. Duffy out of Mr Wright’s personal funds was made solely by Mr. Wright and was his responsibility. Obviously, had I known about this earlier I would never have allowed this to take place. When I answered questions about this in the House of Commons I answered questions to the best of my knowledge."